Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
ITAT dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous application seeking rectification under section 254(2). The tribunal held that the application was essentially attempting to review the original order, which is impermissible under law. Established judicial precedent confirms that review disguised as rectification is not allowed. An oversight of fact or failure to consider an argument does not constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under the provision. The tribunal's original findings on section 69A and 115BBE remained unchanged, and the application was rejected on procedural grounds, maintaining the integrity of the original appellate order.
ITAT dismissed the assessee's miscellaneous application seeking rectification under section 254(2). The tribunal held that the application was essentially attempting to review the original order, which is impermissible under law. Established judicial precedent confirms that review disguised as rectification is not allowed. An oversight of fact or failure to consider an argument does not constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under the provision. The tribunal's original findings on section 69A and 115BBE remained unchanged, and the application was rejected on procedural grounds, maintaining the integrity of the original appellate order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.